Jnana wrote: For example, in some organizations the process leading toward full ordination can take 5 or more years, during which time both the applicant and the senior monastics can periodically assess the mental fitness and aptitude of the candidate. IMO this is a good thing, and should probably be more widely adopted.

There are pros and cons.

The dropout rate for such seminaries in Taiwan, at least among males, is quite high. A lot of men start out wanting to become monks, but drop out before they are permitted the full precepts.

I think it has less to do with adjusting to celibacy, but more to do with the stringent demands placed on them. You surrender all freedom and autonomy in such seminary programs. They make you memorize liturgy as a requirement for ordination, train you to follow their version of social conventions (like how to eat with their version of table manners) and arrange your schedule for you. At the end it is the powers that be that decide whether or not you are qualified to become a monk. I imagine if you demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with authority they'd see you as unfit even if you were fine with celibacy and all other basic monastic norms. Obedience to authority shouldn't be a prerequisite for receiving precepts.

Such a program, in my mind, is suited to adolescents maybe, but not adult males who already have an education and plenty of life experience (and a will of their own).

I've come to wonder if in contemporary Taiwanese Buddhist seminaries they didn't get a lot of their ideas from Jesuit missionaries and/or the military. In East Asia at least the old model was basically one where a novice lived with their preceptor for some years, learned the ropes from him/her and then got full precepts.

I think a lot of would-be monks are fine with celibacy. It is just the psychologically crushing seminary program that turns them off.

Hello Huseng, if you truly are in search of a teacher to teach you the ways of enlightenment, i wouldn't waste my time with the 4 major temples.

You know, as much as how Taiwan irks me nowadays with its bloody commercialism (ain't too much of a difference between Taiwan and China nowadays), there is still quite a number of enlightened teachers in Taiwan. Buddhism isn't the only school which teaches the ways of enlightenment.

If you wanna stick with buddhism, then I suggest looking for the smaller temples in the Taiwanese mountains. The more rural and isolated the temple, the higher your chances of finding a true enlightened teacher. Stay away from the cities.

The truly enlightened ones do not waste their time and energies mixing with the mundane masses. Nor do they require large amounts of money. I assume your asian language is above average. Ask the villagers.

JKhedrup wrote:I was worried I missed something when you mentioned bodhisattva vows. How do you feel these vows indicate that celibacy is not a Mahayana practice?

Dude. Is there a noise filter over my posts or something?

#1 I said:

asking him to respect that there are other valid expressions of Mahayana Dharma.

and #2 I said, in the same sentence you quoted me

I do not disagree that promotion of celibacy is one important way that the Dharma is approached and expressed, but it is not the default Mahayana method

How do these statements lead you to ask me

How do you feel these vows indicate that celibacy is not a Mahayana practice?

I never said, implied, or even ever remotely thought anything of the sort!

I was saying it is not __THE ONLY__ expression of the Mahayana.

In the vein of the shastra Huseng himself quoted, I cited Bodhisattva vows because there is a specific one that points out that the outer vows of external conduct are superseded by the wish and ability to benefit others, even at the expense of one's own karmic consequence. So one vow is explicitly to not refrain from engaging in any of the seven non-virtuous acts if the circumstances require it to benefit beings. You and Huseng may counter that this is only in the case of a very highly realized Bodhisattva already on the bhumis.. and I am not so sure about that. The vow's intent is not to have us constantly conducting ourselves in this way, but if the circumstances arise and it is very certain that these actions will benefit others then they are permissible. This clearly is not an absolutist path, which considers one action always "good" and one always "bad", but one based on view and motivation in the context of specific circumstances as they arise. As you must know, this is the basis of "skillful means" and much of tantric thought arises from this.

Of course, I understand your position as your lineage is one that prides itself on a type of pure sutric conduct. However, I ask the same from you as from Huseng: which is to simply accept with openness that there are other (perhaps equally valid) interpretations of these subtle points, and rich lineage traditions that are constantly churning out realized beings despite a lack of stringent adherence to celibacy.

As a contemporary Gelug I imagine one of your root teachers is HH the Dalai Lama. (If I am wrong, I apologize). Now while HH is a pure monk, he practices the terma of Lerab Lingpa as one of his heart practices, afaik. Lerab Lingpa was a Ngakpa yogi who had children. Likewise, HH studied Dzogchen with HH Dudjom Rinpoche, whose tradition I follow and whose children and grandchildren continue to benefit the Dharma and sentient beings in profound and vast ways. Us disciples of these great beings are generally not encouraged (or discouraged) to be celibate. I think it may behoove you to respect the various views on this issue, and to read my posts more carefully.

The Dalai Lama had experienced previous lifetimes on planet earth as a human. Does that count as complete enlightenment? I think not. If the Dalai Lama is fully enlightened, I don't think he would be reborn again in this lifetime.

This is not to say the Dalai Lama is not enlightened. He is way enlightened beyond the likes of me and you. But the fact that he is reborn again in this life-time means he didn't finish his "business" in his previous lives and I for one, do not wish to be reborn again as a human on planet earth being a slave to my material desires.

This is a Mahayana forum, and we who take the Bodhisattva vow aspire to be attain enlightenment for the benefit of sentient beings. That means we attain the Dharmakaya for the benefit of ourselves and the Rupakaya for the benefit of others. This is what HH the Dalai Lama has done -- what we see is a manifest body of enlightenment, but Gyalwa Rinpoche's wisdom mind abides in the Dharmakaya. He is not a slave to material desires. He only abides here for the benefit of sentient beings.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

I would hope that in the end having a truly loving relationship with another being transcends just the act of sex, it transcends physicality, and in fact it transcends the beings themselves. The collections of stuff we call people involved are not the point, nor is the physicality. Ever had to clean a lovers wounds, to wipe someone's ass or similar that you once had sex with? Doing that with an open heart is the definition of love, with child, lover, whatever. It transcends delight in bodies, personalities or the aversion at having deal with one anothers ugly shit- sometimes literally.

I think there are great arguments for renunciation, but assuming that The Dharma cannot be practiced because it cannot be practiced from some ideal set of conditions is basically (for some I think) used as justification for not doing it at all. It ain't called the Twofold Assembly.

Wikipedia is not a valid source. Furthermore, as a side note to your original usage of the term with purestsoul, I doubt accusing an opponent of bigotry will help endear him to your point of view. The opposite result seems more likely.

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Touch is also part of shaking hands, does this render shaking hands as a sexual activity? Kissing is also a part of sexual relations. But when I kiss my friends or my parents, when I greet them, does that mean I want to shag them? It reminds me of overtestosteroned teenage boys that consider mammary glands as sexual objects. Over-estimation of value.

So let's just get real (and mature) here for a second.

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Now you are sulking instead of just admiting your ignorance.

Furthermore, as a side note to your original usage of the term with purestsoul, I doubt accusing an opponent of bigotry will help endear him to your point of view. The opposite result seems more likely.

I'm not interested in endearing anybody to anything, I am just pointing out that their speech is not endearing. Sexual (and loving relations) are not the monopoly of heterosexuals. It is that simple. Like it or lump it.

I don't know about the health impact of celibacy? Real celibacy could only be spontaneous, there is no other type of celibacy. If it is not spontaneous, it is not true celibacy. You can force it. you can control your urges, and yes it does show inner strength.But the Buddha, Milerepa, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta showed spontaneous celibacy, not forced, not contrived.... a divine pouring out of purity.

purestsoul wrote:The typical westerner is brainwashed into thinking that "freedom", "equality", "rights" are the epitome of life so when you ask a Westerner to suffer in the quest for enlightenment by cutting off his material desires to sensual pleasures, they will suddenly start screaming that it is their "right" and "freedom" to enjoy life and why should it be a barrier to enlightenment?

The catch is that our freedom is far more limited than we would like to imagine. We don't really have sexual freedom, freedom of sexual expression, freedom of religion. People are persecuted constantly for not conforming to the status quo. Freedom in America for example is a joke compared to some countries. We are deluded in thinking we are truly free. This doesn't even get into the fact that if you are engaged with samsara, you most certainly are *not* free.

purestsoul wrote:Well first of all, let's define enlightenment? What is enlightenment? Is enlightenment simply all about living with unbounded love for everything and everyone? Or is enlightenment all about evolution of the human race from a lower life-form to a much higher life-form?

Its both. Don't be afraid to love everyone, its not so bad.

purestsoul wrote:If you are a true monk, you wouldn't be afraid of living without food or shelter or medicine or whatever. You surrender to the Buddha or God or the Tao or whatever name the Divine has and trust that the Divine will take care of you regardless of whatever obstacle which comes up in your way.

Not realistic in the west. For one there is no free land. Everything is owned by someone. You cant just wander into the forest and start a commune, you will get arrested, fined, and so forth. You need money to at least start the process. Furthermore we have a culture of hatred towards people who don't work, so nobody wants to give anyone anything. People look upon the homeless with disgust and disdain, as less than human. People think the same of monks, they think they are just trying to be lazy and find a way to mooch of society. If we could just go wander into the forest and build a temple and start a monastic community, many of us would, but its not that simple anymore, at least not in America.

purestsoul wrote:The common man got married because he wanna have a taste of the pleasures of married life. The masters got married because they need descendants to spread the teachings of enlightenment.

There are other, equally good reasons to get married besides these two. There are levels of this you simply aren't seeing. Lets examine the most basic level which is quality of life. A married couple has a better quality of life, they have more money, more mobility, more freedom. If they are both practitioners, this translates into more opportunities to receive teachings, go on retreats, and actually practice (if they are dedicated to doing that). This is just the tip of the iceburg of positive outcomes of being a householder.

purestsoul wrote:If given a choice, I can assure you those masters would rather not get married because to have descendants is pretty much guaranteeing that you would be reborn again on this earth which most masters would not want to if given the choice.

Well since many of us are on the path of the Bodhisattva, the idea of returning to this world doesn't bother us much. In fact its precisely what we want to do. Most of the Masters I revere do actually want this, they want to keep helping sentient beings and they return again and again to do so. They would do anything to liberate people from suffering. They are not just trying to make a quick escape, retreating onto a lonely mountain somewhere and then vanishing forever. But we all have our ideas of what makes a person enlightened and compassionate and what doesn't.

purestsoul, "The truly enlightened ones do not waste their time and energies mixing with the mundane masses" The statement sounds over the top and doesn't ring true to me.'The masters got married because they needed descendants to spread the teaching of enlightenment" That's interesting because thats exactly what the Buddha didn't do!

I cant help but find it funny reading this topic. I feel like its a mini civil war each side trying to prove its superiority. I dont find there is anything wrong with sex neither do I think it is an obstacle to leading a holy spiritual life if done skillfully. I dont think there is anything wrong with celibacy either if done skillfully and not psychologically unhealthy. It is two sides of the same coin. A celibate monk can do more good than a lay practitioner and a lay practitioner can benefits more than a monk/nun because he and she will have access to many things monks and nuns are limited to. It is a mutual beneficial relationship. You serve your purpose whether a celibate or someone who have a family or partner and have sex often. I think its arrogant for anybody here to declared they really fully know what Buddhas stance on celibacy is. He may be a celibate and his disciple may be celibate but that doesnt mean he see that as the only path. Scriptures are not really recorded until hundred of years after his death. My honest opinion is just practice humbleness and embrace both paths and see how each have its role in promoting dharma and supporting the sangha.

Metta

Wherever you are, that is where the mind should be. Always be mindful, and be your own master. This is true freedom. - Grand Master Wei Chueh

Just to add: The result of a research work (800 people) about health and support/care for others, where amazing! "The more we wish others happiness, the more happiness will be" is connected with possible longer life due to less stress. The more we want happiness for our selves, the more stress there is.

Long life celibate friends! Long life for all! May we realize Bodhichitta (wisdom-compassion)

Sex only lasts for a few minutes, a few dozen minutes at most, or perhaps an hour for the greatest of porn stars. But how much time playing social games that often verge on or involve lying, suffering, effort and aggravation does it take to get there? And how much more time, suffering and commitment will it lead to especially if you have a child?

The people in wealthy, imperialist nations waste most their free time in escapism like television, movies, internet, drugs, video games, in an unconscious, unstated, but obvious testimony of how bad life has become under modern social conditions. Are future kids gonna be any different? I heard on one podcast that because of advertising that targets them the average young child today has the same stress and unhappiness as mentally disturbed youth of the early 20th Century. Most likely it will only get worse until collapse, because everyone is escaping into fantasy too much to register what is actually happening. One change is that previous societies in previous epochs, used to have male or female couples vetted by their mutual parents and the community. Today youth self select their mates on the "here we are now entertain us" principle(Kurt Cobain), yet staying together as a couple, let alone raising kids, is not about entertainment or fun, it is about discipline, commitment, comprise and sacrifice. Ultimately the children will pay as many of these unions based on entertainment and hedonist selection tend to not end up well in my experience.

You can avoid alot of aggravation and suffering for yourself and others by celibacy. Modern people tend to overlook the suffering involved in activities like sex, gluttony, etc., instead imagining that they are solely win-win pursuits, but if we focused on the many downsides, things would be different and better in our society.

Thrasymachus wrote:Sex only lasts for a few minutes, a few dozen minutes at most, or perhaps an hour for the greatest of porn stars. But how much time playing social games that often verge on or involve lying, suffering, effort and aggravation does it take to get there? And how much more time, suffering and commitment will it lead to especially if you have a child?

The people in wealthy, imperialist nations waste most their free time in escapism like television, movies, internet, drugs, video games, in an unconscious, unstated, but obvious testimony of how bad life has become under modern social conditions. Are future kids gonna be any different? I heard on one podcast that because of advertising that targets them the average young child today has the same stress and unhappiness as mentally disturbed youth of the early 20th Century. Most likely it will only get worse until collapse, because everyone is escaping into fantasy too much to register what is actually happening. One change is that previous societies in previous epochs, used to have male or female couples vetted by their mutual parents and the community. Today youth self select their mates on the "here we are now entertain us" principle(Kurt Cobain), yet staying together as a couple, let alone raising kids, is not about entertainment or fun, it is about discipline, commitment, comprise and sacrifice. Ultimately the children will pay as many of these unions based on entertainment and hedonist selection tend to not end up well in my experience.

You can avoid alot of aggravation and suffering for yourself and others by celibacy. Modern people tend to overlook the suffering involved in activities like sex, gluttony, etc., instead imagining that they are solely win-win pursuits, but if we focused on the many downsides, things would be different and better in our society.

"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution." - Emma Goldman

We all should be celibate so there be no more human. Or we probably can start making babies in liquid container or artificial wombs. (sarcasm) the honest truth is....sex is probably very much necessary probably more important than taking vows of celibacy and lead a monastic life in my opinion.

I see such pessimistic views on sex and relationship here in this Buddhist forum, quite frankly I dont think that is Buddhism. I feel like that is avoidance from the manner and attitude in which many speak with here. There is a huge difference between engaging in sexual activities between two commited couple than some one wanting to hook up. Hooking up is excessive and therefore unhealthy and thus committing sexual misconduct. There is a reason why the Upasaka precept is "no sexual misconduct" and not "no sex". I have witness many couple who love each others and both engaged in buddhist practice, they became the source of support for each others on their dharma journey and they had sex and have kids who are also Buddhist and practice wonderful virtues and deliver that to society and community.

Sex is not the problem, it is the the mindful skillful act that reduce sufferings, the clarity of the mind I see is probably what important. Exscuse me for presenting my opinion but I felt like mainstream buddhist miss the point of buddhism and turning it into a avoiding, running away, supressing practice. It is very selfish and pathetic. Those are all just action, but Buddhism is not about those suppressive avoidant actions which are unhealthy, it is polishing of the mind. A bodhisattvas are like pearl that remain pearl even submerged in muds (and I said that metaphorically). The path to buddha-hood is not the path that eliminate emotions and numb your mind, it is a path of understanding, accepting sorrow and allowing it to past and letting it go, thus one can be involved in a busy enviroment fill with sex and maybe pain but still can practice mindfullness and mastering the minds therefore still live in peace and happiness.

If you havent become the master of your mind, even being a celibate doesnt make a difference, the only difference is you dont have sex. But ultimately your mind is just the same as those who does have sex, and sometimes even less enlightened than someone who have sex.

Metta

Last edited by Bodhi on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wherever you are, that is where the mind should be. Always be mindful, and be your own master. This is true freedom. - Grand Master Wei Chueh

Karma Dorje wrote:Might the causality be backwards here? We have 7 billion people on the planet now vs. 1.7 billion in 1900. Where are these beings coming from? Obviously not the human realm.

Most likely many of the animals which are slaughtered to feed humanity are finding human rebirths. It stands to reason that the neuroses of humanity begin to resemble those of the animal realm.

that makes samsara sound like a zero sum game. While we're at it, we'll just sweep under the rug all the "neuroses" that came prior to 1900. So actually, no, it doesn't stand to reason.

Saying something sounds like something else doesn't refute it. Regardless, zero sum is irrelevant. Those that are human now are quite obviously not accounted for by the number of humans that existed on the earth prior to 1900. Unless you are saying that there are 5.3 billion tulkus that account for the difference, there is a 1:1 correlation that needs to be explained. Where are these sentient beings coming from? An actual argument for your position would be welcomed.